PAY a visit to the Biologic Institute and you are liable to get a chilly reception. "We only see people with appointments," states the man who finally responds to my persistent knocks. Then he slams the door on me.

I am standing on the ground floor of an office building in Redmond, Washington, the Seattle suburb best known as home town to Microsoft. What I'm trying to find out is whether the 1-year-old institute is the new face of another industry that has sprung up in the area - the one that has set out to try to prove evolution is wrong.

This is my second attempt to engage in person with scientists at Biologic. At the institute's other facility in nearby Fremont, researchers work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes - a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub. Most of them there proved just as reluctant to speak with a New Scientist reporter.

The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

The anti-evolution movement's latest response to Darwin is intelligent design (ID). Its fundamental premise is that certain features of living organisms are too complex to have evolved without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer. In ID literature that designer remains cautiously anonymous, but for many proponents he corresponds closely with the God of the Christian Bible. Over the past few years the movement's media-savvy public face has been the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has championed intelligent design, claiming it to be a legitimate scientific theory, and supported its key architects. It was Discovery that provided the funding to get the Biologic Institute up and running.

Interesting. Thanks for the post Jason. I think we were all wondering what they were up to.

I just had to cringe when I read that they call themselves "Biologic Institute". However, since the DI appears to be funding this, I would say it is a good thing, since it means less money for them to pump into PR. Funny though, they should have taken the Templeton offer...

Woa, this lab is so secret than ID leaders like Dembski and Behe don't even know about it. Or why wasn't its existence mentionned in Dover, when defendants were asked about the state of "ID research"?

All part of their master plan. they probably all discuss it on their Double-Secret Creationist List. (You know, the one where you're prohibited from discussing the age of the earth.) They were waiting until they had conclusive evidence to crush Neo-Darwinianism, at which point they'll publish their devastating argument that indeed, Goddidit™. At which point all us materialist chance-worshippers will scatter like mice, and Dembski and Davison will take their places as the greatest, most respected scientists in the world. Out of terror, Dawkins will become a fugitive, taking refuge in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Due to his association with this great Cultural Renewal, Dave Scot will successfully run for President in 2008, whereupon his first act will be banning all homos and Judge Jones.

Funny, I always assumed their secret lab would be a scary mountaintop redoubt, like this:

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

However, Steve Fuller, a sociologist at the University of Warwick, UK, who testified in favour of ID in the Dover trial, believes the Biologic Institute's activities could help break down barriers between religious people and scientists. "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."

Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, views it in a different light. The lab's existence will help sustain support within the anti-evolution community, he says. "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"

Well, let's see some output from that lab, before we decide how it'll function.

That you can be a creationist and not get too dirty in lab is as correct as it is that you don't do much in that lab in the first round. The 2nd Law of Laboratorydynamics states that the more you work, the dirtier you get, and that's impossible for the IDists and creationists to circumvent.

they probably all discuss it on their Double-Secret Creationist List (You know, the one where you're prohibited from discussing the age of the earth.)

And if HIV causes AIDS.

Quote

"Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."

To do what? Okay, they're in a "lab," but who wants to bet that they'll never come out again?

Wow, Steve Fuller is really full of it. And these people really do not get it! They have created a parody of sciency stuff to look really sciency, but they have no methodology and nothing to work with, and in the meantime true research will leave them in the dust of their Genesis.

This really isn't all that surprising, I don't think, even given the DI's loathing for labwork. The dembski/behe technobabble that they came up with in 1995 no longer works now that it's been aired in court. They now have to come up with some new technobabble if they're to continue at all. Using my amazing psychic powers, I predict that one of the following two things will happen:

1. We will literally never hear from these people ever again

2. In a few years Axe and Dixon will start publishing books full of technobabble under some new banner which is not "Intelligent Design", taking the exact places Behe and Dembksi took under the ID banner. This technobabble will be based on the "research" done at biologic over the next couple years; and since the list of research topics in that article is ALL about evolution and nothing about "design", we can assume the DI STILL hasn't learned their lesson and the technobabble will all be of the form "We did some research, and we discovered this thing about evolution that NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN AND NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN. Therefore goddiddit."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Ok, I got the petri dish prepped with Bacreria X and firmly placed on a King James Bible. This will work, I just know it. All systems go, I repeat, all systems go!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Prayer group reports they are ready and will start praying in 3...2...1..."

*Moment of holy silence...

*Time passes

* People blink

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "I don't see anything happening. Are you SURE thay are praying?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "I am sure they are praying! Heck, even I am praying..."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Well, nothing is happening, so they must be doing it wrong! Perhaps the King James should be replaced with a New International Version... hhhmmm"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Maybe they should try praying in tongues...."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"You mean they were NOT praying in tongues? How do you expect this to work if they don't pray in tongues??? Idiot!"

*Radio communication...

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Ok, the Prayer group has actived Praying in Tongues mode. I can hear them from here."

*Time passes, voices rise in religious fervor

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : " Still nothing. What are they praying for?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "How the #### should they know? It's tongues, remember! Nobody but God nows what the #### they are jabbering about"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "It's driving me nuts, all this bloddy noise, tell them to shut up. It friggin sounds like a bunch of drunk Swiss yodeling! Even the Bacteria seems uneasy and are scattering to the sides!"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 :Who left the Dakins book on the tabel over there next to the hydrogen container?"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"It looks like all the Bacteria died! This is great! It means if you burn atheist books, God... er.. the designer will purify the Earth of these disease causing critters! Praise the Lo... I mean, the Designer. Get me more evil books now!!"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Ok, I got the petri dish prepped with Bacreria X and firmly placed on a King James Bible. This will work, I just know it. All systems go, I repeat, all systems go!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Prayer group reports they are ready and will start praying in 3...2...1..."

*Moment of holy silence...

*Time passes

* People blink

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "I don't see anything happening. Are you SURE thay are praying?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "I am sure they are praying! Heck, even I am praying..."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Well, nothing is happening, so they must be doing it wrong! Perhaps the King James should be replaced with a New International Version... hhhmmm"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Maybe they should try praying in tongues...."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"You mean they were NOT praying in tongues? How do you expect this to work if they don't pray in tongues??? Idiot!"

*Radio communication...

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Ok, the Prayer group has actived Praying in Tongues mode. I can hear them from here."

*Time passes, voices rise in religious fervor

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : " Still nothing. What are they praying for?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "How the #### should they know? It's tongues, remember! Nobody but God nows what the #### they are jabbering about"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "It's driving me nuts, all this bloddy noise, tell them to shut up. It friggin sounds like a bunch of drunk Swiss yodeling! Even the Bacteria seems uneasy and are scattering to the sides!"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : See! It's conclusive. God does not make things evolve! Evolution has just been debunked. Now Johnny, want to go get some meth and a hotel room? (gently strokes his goatee)

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

On this Episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith reports on the CSC-supported, independent research facility, Biologic Institute. Headed by Dr. Douglas Axe, Biologic's purpose is to scientifically put the claims of Neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design to the test in a laboratory setting. Work is already well under way, with Discovery Institute Fellows conducting biological studies to test each theory's assumptions from an unapologetically ID frame of reference. This should prove to be a huge addition to the cause of intelligent design.

Posted by CSC at 10:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Anika, we've been talking about this 'lab' for years. No 'new ID research' yet.

THE cat-and-mouse contest between science and creationism took a new turn this week with the unveiling of a "God lab" ostensibly set up to search for scientific evidence for intelligent design. The move follows a 2005 US federal court ruling that ID is a religious idea not a scientific one.

Quote

“The move follows a US court ruling that ID is a religious idea not a scientific one”

The Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, has been shrouded in secrecy since it was established more than a year ago by the Discovery Institute, an organisation which claims ID is a scientific theory (New Scientist, 16 December 2006, p 8). Its existence was finally made public on 10 May, when details of the project were published online at www.biologicinstitute.org.

Most scientists remain unimpressed. "A cursory inspection of its staff roster reveals the same ID creationists whose work has already been critiqued and discredited, with a couple of new faces added for novelty," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher who studies the creationist movement at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond.

Man you have to go to their website. They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology. Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski. Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.

Man you have to go to their website. They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology. Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski. Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.

But it sounds really sciency. For their target audience, that's all that matters.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Man you have to go to their website. They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology. Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski. Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.

They hope to win the argument ad doctorum... where Dembski's math degree and philosophy degree qualify him to vomit stuff about evolution. Works for the rubes, and sells books. And you are right about DaveScot knowing more biology than Dr. Dr. Plus, DaveScot can still eat at the Baylor Cafeteria.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

A few key ideas run through all of our work. One is the idea that information is as real and fundamental as physical quantities, like mass or energy. As a measurable substance with real-world effects subject to law-like constraints, information is undeniably the stuff of science. It is also the stuff of technology… which is the stuff of design. Interestingly, the only places in the universe where we see information stored, processed and transmitted in digital code are the complex systems of human design and the even more complex design-like systems of life.

Another key idea is that highly complex functional systems cannot be understood properly just by examining their elementary constituents. The behavior of whole systems might be explained in terms of the behavior of their constituents, but it won’t be understood that way. To grasp the whole picture you have to look at the whole picture.

Both of these ideas suggest a broader principle that we have adopted. As designers, we humans know something about design. So if we really want to know whether the design-like systems in biology were designed, we ought to draw on that knowledge. To take this principle seriously, we need to promote a serious exchange of ideas between biology and the engineering disciplines.

Wooohooo, more engineers being told to fantasise. Thats how you do science for sure.More interestingly, how exactly is information a substance?And if you look at their list of selected publications down the bottom of the page, it seems that Gonzalez' entire output is there.

Huh. I only clicked on that link so I could more knowledgeably berate you about how that was an old article, but it's a new article. Good on you.

Sadly, though, their 'research' is still at the same point...

What else did you expect?

Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.

It seems curing cancer is aiming pretty low compared to their obvious objective, which is to use the tools of modern day scientific mimicry to prove the existence of God.

Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.

It seems curing cancer is aiming pretty low compared to their obvious objective, which is to use the tools of modern day scientific mimicry to prove the existence of God.

By design, it will keep them in business for an eternity.

Now that's a Deep Thought.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

--------------Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

My gosh... this is the chap who the DI moaned about being fired? (which apparently is the same as not getting tenure - hey, I don't make the rules).

He does some research that suggests that by a quirk of mathematics, habitable planets, because of their orbits, are more likely to have the setup for perfect eclipses than uninhabitable ones. This is interesting, and I like it. It's one of those weird mathematical tricks like two people sharing birthdays in a large group.

So he's shown that the fact we have nice eclipses IS NOT SURPRISING OR MAGICAL - in essence, score one for the godless atheist naturalist side.

But then he throws in this utter illogic about eclipses driving scientific discovery. Um, what does that have to do with anything? Archimedes was turned on by bathwater. War has been a highly effective way to advance science. But his whole argument hinges on the suggestion that some intelligence set up the universe and the moon in such an unlikely way as to make science all that much easier for us.

I'm pretty sure I can come up with many, many ways that scientific discovery could be made easier. For one, not having THE DARK AGES. For two, not having people who are trying to bring back THE DARK AGES. For three, how about not having clouds at all, or at least having them move in paths which run around our telescopes? Because I'm one of many people who didn't see the 1999 total solar eclipse BECAUSE OF HUGE CLOUDS. (I went to Cornwall to see it and all).

Like the Explanatory Filter, Gonzales idea relies on being able to go through an infinity of possibilities. In the EF, one has to rule out all natural laws, discovered or not; in the Privileged Planet, one cannot claim that our current position is the best without knowing all possible positions. What if we were in one of those little dwarf galaxies over the Milky Way? The whole Milky Way swirly would fill the sky*. We'd be able to watch stars orbit the central black hole. With an X-ray telescope perhaps we'd detect the streamers and deduce the existence of other quasars easily instead of all that difficult science they had to do.

I suspect Gonzales work is going to be just like Dembski's; sloppy in all the areas where the argument is, rejected by science, but fuel for creationists. Hey, I've already had a creationist give me the eclipse argument.

* Stargate Atlantis shows us what this might be like. Sorry, I just watched the episode with the midway station between the Milky Way and the Pegasus galaxy and it's jawdroppingly pretty.

* Stargate Atlantis shows us what this might be like. Sorry, I just watched the episode with the midway station between the Milky Way and the Pegasus galaxy and it's jawdroppingly pretty.

Off topic I know, but I'd disagree with "jawdroppingly pretty". Half-way to M31, it would be four times the apparent size and have four times the brightness it has from Earth - not big or bright enough to see much spiral structure with the naked eye. The Milky Way would look more or less the same in the opposite direction, and I haven't checked the numbers but the Triangulum spiral would probably be naked-eye as well. And that would be it. Nothing else to see without a telescope.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Are these circumstances that allow us to observe the best solar eclipses in the Solar System just a lucky coincidence, or do they point to something larger?

1) Guess what just fits in my hand (sorta)?

YOU'RES CAN FIT IN 2 A KITENS' HAND. HOMO.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its latest piece of research. Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.

This is the new face of ID/C: Vicarious Research.

They don't, like, do any research of their own, but they sure love pointing out how real scientists are inadvertently doing cutting-edge ID research. They like remoras. Or maybe more like, say, liver flukes.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I suspect Gonzales work is going to be just like Dembski's; sloppy in all the areas where the argument is, rejected by science, but fuel for creationists. Hey, I've already had a creationist give me the eclipse argument.

edit: italic

Such as in:

Quote

26. Observation of highly complex life and bio/eco system requires a creator. a. The size of the sun and moon, while the ratio to earth is hundreds of times distant from earth they are exactly the same size during most eclipses.

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

No prob. When the moon is too far away from the sun to form exact eclipses, that's when the moon will cease to be Designed.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed. And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed. And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

I guess that tells us how many days we have. Just calculate when the moon will cease producing total eclipses and you have the day of reckoning.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed. And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

Could've they have designed a calender in which the months are all the same length, and equal to a integer number of weeks?

I think GG could be more successful if he presented his "the universe is set up for discovery" BS in the way Billy Preston did it.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed. And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

Could've they have designed a calender in which the months are all the same length, and equal to a integer number of weeks?

Henry

No. The solar system was designed to encourage man to discover real numbers.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Biologic Institute welcomes three European scientists this month, the first (we hope) of many. [1] Professor Matti Leisola, the Dean of Chemistry and Materials Science at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, brings a wealth of experience on the structure and function of enzymes, including their responses to engineered changes. His research team has made a huge impact in their field, with well over a thousand references to their work in the scientific literature.

Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research in the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences at Coventry University, expands our program of research on information theory and search algorithms. His work in this area has focused on genetic algorithms—search methods that borrow various principles from evolutionary biology. Connections of this kind between different fields provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, which is nearly always a good thing.

The addition of Stuart Burgess likewise brings us to an exciting interface between disciplines. Professor Burgess is the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Bristol. He’s a first-rate engineer, but one with an unusual fascination with biology. That’s the right combination of interests for designing things like robotic versions of flying insects. [2] Our interest, of course, is that you can’t come away from projects like that without new insights into the connection between life and design.

Maybe your expertise will be the next valuable addition. If so, we’d like to hear from you. We aren’t big (yet). But we keep seeing big opportunities.

So, that's a biochemist, a mathematician (sort of), and an engineer. Hm.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

BIO-Complexity demonstrates its commitment to critical exchange in other ways as well. For every peer-reviewed article it publishes, it seeks a well-informed Critique of that article. And for each of these it seeks a Response from the original authors. Unlike the original articles they comment on, Critiques and Responses won’t be peer reviewed. The reason for this is that we want to give people appropriate freedom to state informed opinions boldly, without the level of caution that peer review tends to enforce. And on the subject of peer review, the policy of BIO-Complexity is to seek evaluation from experts who fall on both sides of the ID controversy.

Yada Yada Yada.

10 June. Zero well-informed critiques.

Quote

Finally, you can have your say as well, because everyone who agrees to abide by three common-sense rules can post comments on anything and everything that BIO-Complexity publishes [3].

I can have my say? Ok, great. Let's find out what we are dealing with.

Ok. And how were they doing that? Need some specialised equipment for that no doubt. Science stuff and all that. Hey, well, a freezer! They need them, right! I've seen pictures of labs and they often have what look like freezers in the background! And a Mac.

I guess they must spend a lot on rent instead. That's good. I mean, they then have plenty of cash left over to spend on research and all that. Hmm. These forms are new to me but I can't seem to find any other major expenditures thenOh. And the freezer was quite expensive! It must be a science freezer for sure!

And so, with their trusty Mac, freezer and photocopier they stride into 2007 steeling themselves for the fight and inevitable victory against Darwinism.

So, what progress in next year's form? Well, somebody gave them $725,100. They are still paying the same rent.

Well, doubters (I sense it), something did change! Something major. Yep! Another Apple! Top notch model at the time by my reckoning. Course it'll be outdated now but that's the way it goes!New research scientists joined the team that year. That'll be what they've been waiting for. To buy the equipment. To do the research. A cool 50k. Nice. Guess what with the excitement of the new Mac and I guess the freezer may have been playing up that's why they forgot to file their tax form!I wonder. Could this "third party" be him? it? The intelligent designer?

Nah. They'd need another Mac. We'll have to wait until 2009 is up to find out! But what did they achieve in 2008?

Woo! Nearly 4000 hits!

But it's like Mr Axe says

Quote

Enough said. Go explore. I can’t think of anything bad to say about BIO-Complexity, so I’ll leave that to others. Let them have their say, and then come back to the question of what science is all about. If you’re a big fan of science, I think you’ll end up being a big fan of BIO-Complexity.

Yeah, I'm a big fan! Oh and 2007/8 saw Axe get a rise, taking in $92,083. I guess it was those 4000 hits. Or, nearly 4000 rather. A 36 % increase? If his website gets a million hits he'll be rolling in it! Imagine!

And next year? 2008? 2009? I think it'll go

Freezer, Mac, Mac, Photocopier, Mac

And after that? Impossible to tell.......

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I nominate OM for POTW for due diligence and thoroughly enjoyable running commentary! (does this thread have a POTx? Is Jason Spaceman on earthly furlough?)

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.

Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.

Wes, so if he gets 97k for 40,000 views then you must be a millionaire

Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.

It says "Nearly 4000 unique visitors accessed the site within the first month of launch, indicating a considerable level of interest."So, we don't know how many visitors the site regularly gets. But knowing that whoever wrote this probably tried to give their numbers the most positive spin, that every ID-friendly site and - more importantly - a lot of decidedly ID-unfriendly sites linked to the Biologic institute's site after its launch, I think we can safely assume that their monthly visitor numbers are underwhelming.

Over the last year they've had under 3400 visitors in total according to Compete.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

I think GG could be more successful if he presented his "the universe is set up for discovery" BS in the way Billy Preston did it.

"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The Biologic Institute has changed its appearance. Seemingly it will be run as a kind of blog now. However, without comments.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Spiffy new webpage. The alpha helices don't look much like the assorted hardware strewn around...

but the wingnut is appropriate.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Doc Bill is not shy and jumps in to bite Klinghoffer's ass. It was not good, btw:

Hey, Klinghoffer, remember when Abbie Smith kicked Behe's balls up around his ears for a lie he published in Edge? Remember that? It was embarrassing because Behe was sloppy and left comments open on Amazon and Abbie got in there and tore Behe a new one. Behe recanted, remember? He admitted he "made a mistake" when we all knew he lied. You might want to call Mikey and ask him how long it took him to get over being pwnd by a "graduate" student, who are awesome creatures, by the way. You're there right now. You've been caught in a lie and you need to pwn up to it or suffer. Personally, I prefer you suffer but I'm a bad person.

Look on the bright side: the 100 word posting limit means that any and all cut and paste contributions from KF or BA77 are a non-starter so you won't have to scroll past all that crap.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

The books in her back say what?Have a closer look:Oh, and she can run gels!With bands!And mutations alternative designs!Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that Ann Gauger is God!!

Quote

Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The books in her back say what?Have a closer look:Oh, and she can run gels!With bands!And mutations alternative designs!Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that Ann Gauger is God!!

Quote

Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.

The books in her back say what?Have a closer look:Oh, and she can run gels!With bands!And mutations alternative designs!Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that Ann Gauger is God!!

Quote

Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.

Her mutated codon has a stop (TAG) 2 up from it.

Nonsense mutations-> very small islands of function?

Unless she's arbitrarily highlighted three bases?

Are these base pairs: T-T, A-A, C-C, G-G?

WTF?

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

No. This is the output of a program like blast or fasta which compare two sequences. The two sequnences are aligned and identical positions are marked by vertical bars aka pipes.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The sequences stem from E. coli. I guess this relates to a "paper" (you know it's from Bio-Complexity) on biotin synthesis Gauger published with Axe that even YEC Todd Wood judged negatively. for more see PT

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his DiEBlog.

sorry, wrong thread, will copy it to BI:NP

Edited by sparc on June 23 2013,23:26

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

John Mercer Pardon me? This was about engineering. You wrote, "Ask protein engineers how easy it is to redesign a protein to a genuinely new function." It starts with the 1999 JBC paper listed at the link Gary provided.

Biologic Institute In that paper you generate a null mutation, meaning a "loss of function" mutation. Not a new function. "As cell–cell junctions are important in morphogenesis, we generated a null mutation in the murine Af6 locus to test the hypothesis that lack of AF-6 function would cause epithelial abnormalities....

John Mercer You are mistaken. I pointed you to the 1999 **JBC** paper. You described our Current Biology paper. The JBC paper is Engineering of the myosin-I? nucleotide-binding pocket to create selective sensitivity to N 6-modified ADP analogs, JBC 274:31373.

John Mercer Pardon me? This was about engineering. You wrote, "Ask protein engineers how easy it is to redesign a protein to a genuinely new function." It starts with the 1999 JBC paper listed at the link Gary provided.

Biologic Institute In that paper you generate a null mutation, meaning a "loss of function" mutation. Not a new function. "As cell–cell junctions are important in morphogenesis, we generated a null mutation in the murine Af6 locus to test the hypothesis that lack of AF-6 function would cause epithelial abnormalities....

John Mercer You are mistaken. I pointed you to the 1999 **JBC** paper. You described our Current Biology paper. The JBC paper is Engineering of the myosin-I? nucleotide-binding pocket to create selective sensitivity to N 6-modified ADP analogs, JBC 274:31373.

What do you expect? She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

One observation regarding these online discussions- if there are "like" buttons we should use them. This might seem trivial, but market reserachers have found that they are significant in the opinions of neutral readers.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

What do you expect? She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.

It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...

What do you expect? She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.

It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...

It is remarkable how little creationists care about lying, or being caught lying.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

What do you expect? She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.

It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...

It is remarkable how little creationists care about lying, or being caught lying.

I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism â€” I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I canâ€™t think of anything else we can do; weâ€™ve done all these careful experiments, weâ€™ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but itâ€™s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level weâ€™ve done it to critique the work weâ€™ve done. So, I feel like weâ€™re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism â€” I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I canâ€™t think of anything else we can do; weâ€™ve done all these careful experiments, weâ€™ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but itâ€™s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level weâ€™ve done it to critique the work weâ€™ve done. So, I feel like weâ€™re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism â€” I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I canâ€™t think of anything else we can do; weâ€™ve done all these careful experiments, weâ€™ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but itâ€™s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level weâ€™ve done it to critique the work weâ€™ve done. So, I feel like weâ€™re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

DA: What bothers me about the way the debate has played out is that both sides â€” the sides that Iâ€™m referring to here are the intelligent design proponents and the defenders of the orthodox Darwinian view â€” have tended to perpetuate the idea that this is basically a technical argument for scientists to hash out, and that the general public is to consume only the simplified explanations of whatâ€™s happening in that technical argument. That has bothered me for two reasons. One, because the establishment side, the orthodox Darwinian position, will always win if thatâ€™s how we frame the debate, because they outnumber us. There are far more people with Ph.D.s at top research facilities who disagree with me than the people who agree with me.The other reason it bothers me is that I donâ€™t fundamentally think that this is, at rock bottom, a technical issue. Common sense and very universal, simple reasoning actually can show you that Darwinâ€™s story cannot be the true story.So, I use the term common science to connect to common sense, but also to show that itâ€™s not just that we have these intuitions, we actually have experienced observation models that we build as we go through life, beginning with early childhood, that really are scientific in nature. We donâ€™t just pull these things out of thin air, we base them on our own observations and collective experience. They are really scientific in nature. Thatâ€™s what I was aiming for with the term â€ścommon science.â€ť

'I mean, just look at it. Like, it has to be made by somebody. I mean...just look at it.'

I couldn't resist making my own comment (under my real name) although I think I am the least academic person in the game. 7 years in school, that's all! It may not be appropriate to praise yourself but just this once, I am proud of my 86 years old brain!

I couldn't resist making my own comment (under my real name) although I think I am the least academic person in the game. 7 years in school, that's all! It may not be appropriate to praise yourself but just this once, I am proud of my 86 years old brain!